2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-30-2010 

# Mi les E dward s v

. J ohn Y o s t P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1441

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Mi le s E dwar d s v

. J o hn Y os t " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1082. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1082BL D- 2 0 7 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1441

___________ M I LES E D W A RD S, A ppel l ant v. J O H N Y O ST , W ar den

____________________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D i s tr i ctC our tC i vi l N o. 07- cv- 00057) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m G i bs on

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al Pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) or S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 M ay27, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM M i l es E dw ar ds , a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng a mot i on f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f

i l e d i n a h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g . W e wi l l a f f i r m.T he p ort i on of E dw ards’ sent ence in excess of tw enty -s even y ears and si x m on ths, 1 how ever , w as s us pended f orthi r t een y ear s , atw hi ch t i m e, unl es s the s us pens i on w as vaca t ed, the s us pended pa r tof the s ent ence w oul d be r emi t t ed. 2 I n 1994, E dw ar ds , a s ol di eri n the U ni t ed St at es A r m y , pl eade d gui l tybefor e a co u rt -m arti al t o m u rde r i n v iolati o n o f A rt icl e 1 1 8 o f th e U n ifo rm C o d e o f M il it ary J u s t i c e , 1 0 U. S . C. § 9 1 8 . E d wa r d s s h o ta n d k i l l e d a wo ma n i n h i s b a rr a c k s r o o m. He r ece i ved a s ent ence of thi r tyy ear s i n pr i s on. E dw ar ds ’ appea l s i n the U ni t ed St at es 1 A r m yC our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( “A C C A ”) and the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s for th e A rm e d F o rc e s (“ C A A F ” ) w e re u n su c c e ss f u l. I n 2002, s i x y ear s aft erthe compl et i on of hi s di r ectappea l s i n 1996, E dw ar ds fi l ed a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n the A C C A chal l engi ng the j ur i s di ct i on of the c ou r t - mar t i a l . The A CC A de ni e d the pe t i t i on . Edw a r ds a l s o s ou gh tr e l i e f i n the CA A F, w h ic h w a s d e n ie d in 2 0 0 2 . I n 2 0 0 7 , Ed wa r d s f

i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o ra wr i to f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2241 i n D i s tr i ctC our tchal l engi ng the j ur i s di ct i on of the court - m art i al on s ever al gr ounds . T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatthe pet i t i on be deni ed. E dw ar ds m oved fora 90- dayext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e obj ect i ons , as s ert i ng thathe w as i n the p ro c e ss o f

se e k in g c o u n se l to re p re se n t h im a n d th a t h e d id n o t h a v e a c c e ss to a ll o f h is l egal m at er i al s beca us e he w as confi ned i n the pr i s on’ s s peci al hous i ng uni t . O n O ct ober 27, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e, adopt ed the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, and deni ed the habe as pet i t i on.3

O vera y earl at er , on D ece m ber1, 2009, E dw ar ds fi l ed a “ M ot i on for R econs i der at i on forE nl ar gementof Ti m e. ” H e as s ert ed that , on O ct ober25, 2009, he w as pr epar i ng a “w r i tof habe as ” t o thi s C our ti n r es pons e t o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on w h e n h e w a s m o v e d to a c o u n tyjail f o r a rra ig n m e n t o n p o ss e ss io n o f c o n tra b a n d in pr i s on. H e s t at ed thathe w as m oved w i thouthi s l egal document s and thathe s oughta 30- dayext ens i on of t i m e. T he M agi s tr at e J udge cons trued Edw ar ds ’ fi l i ng as a mot i on forr econs i der at i on of the or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e obj ect i ons t o hi s r eport . T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatthe mot i on be deni ed, not i ng thatE dw ar ds ’ habea s p e tit io n h a d b e e n d e n ied m o re th a n a y e a r a g o , tha t h is re q u e st w a s n o w m o o t, an d th a t, ev en if th e m o ti o n w as c o n stru ed as a m o ti o n u n d er F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 6 0 (b ), E d w a rd s p re s e n te d n o re a s o n to d is tu rb th e c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. E d w a rd s f

iled o b jec tio n s to th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e p o rt, as k in g th e c o u rt to re c o n sid e r th e d e n ial o f h is re q u e st f

o r a n e n lar g e m e n t o f

tim e a n d a d d re ss in g th e m e rits of hi s habea s pet i t i on. E dw ar ds al s o as ked the courtt o “gr antequi t abl e t ol l i ng of the l i m i t at i ons per i od, ” s t at i ng thathe w as “w i thi n the 1 y earl i m i t at i on forappea l ” w hen he w as tr ans ferr ed t o countypr i s on and s epar at ed fr om hi s l egal m at er i al s . Fi ndi ng E dw ar ds ’ obj ect i ons m er i t l es s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Edw ar ds ’ m ot i on for r econs i der at i on. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. A s a pr el i m i narym att er , w e not e thatE dw ar ds di d notfi l e a t i m el yappea l of the4

deni al of hi s habea s pet i t i on. O urj ur i s di ct i on i s thus l i m i t ed t o a r evi ew of the deni al of hi s “M ot i on forR econs i der at i on forE nl ar gementof Ti m e. ” See Bow l es v. R us s el l , 551 U .S . 2 0 5 , 2 1 3 (2 0 0 7 ) (h o ld in g f a ilu re to f

ile n o tice o f

a p p e a l in a c c o rd a n c e w ith sta tu te d e p ri v e d c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls o f

ju ri s d ic tio n ). O n th e m e rits, itis n o t en tirelyc lea r w h a t re lief E d w a rd s w a s s e e k in g in h is m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. T o t he ext entthe D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ycons trued the fi l i ng a s a mo t i o n f

o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e o r d e rd e n y i n g h i s mo t i o n f o ra n e x t e n s i o n o f

t i me to f ile o b jec tio n s to th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e p o rt, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n deny i ng r econs i der at i on. T he mot i on w as fi l ed more than a y earaft erhabea s re lie f w a s d e n ie d . E dw ar ds ’ m ot i on forr econs i der at i on m aybe bett ercons trued as s eeki ng an ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng habea s re lief. E d w a rd s s tate d in h is m o tio n th a t h e w a s p re p a rin g a d o c u m e n t to th is C o u rt in resp o n se to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n . H is objecti o n s to the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s r ecomm endat i on thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdenyr econs i der at i on i ndi cat e thathe bel i eved that he had a y eart o fi l e a not i ce of appea l . T o the ext entthi s i s the r el i ef Edw ar ds s ought , t he D i s tr i ctC our tcoul d nothave a ffor ded an e xt ens i on of t i m e bec aus e hi s m ot i on di d not s a tis f yth e tim e re q u ir e m e n ts o f F e d e ra l R u le s o f

A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re 4 (a )( 5 ) o r 4 (a )( 6 ). A c c o rd in g ly , b e c a u se th is a p p e a l d o e s n o t ra ise a su b sta n tial q u e stio n , w e w ill su m m aril yaf

firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.